Big Brother vs United States Presidents Part 2: Revolution

For the love of Big Brother! 

Big Brother may or may not exist, but is to be the dictator of Oceania, which is a superpower of the United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, Australia, North Africa, and the British Isles. Some fans of the novel 1984 have often made the comparison of the superpowers Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia to the three real superpowers of our time: The United States, Russia, and China. It's fine to do that now, but it's unlikely that's what Orwell intended since in 1948 China wasn't at its peak in power and strength as it is now.

Oceania, while a good comparison to the United States in its size and its ties to the British Empire, still doesn't accurately reflect George Orwell's vision. Mainly he was trying to warn his own nation of how they were becoming like the enemies they fought against. Of course, I'm sure he would want future generations of various nations to also heed his warning against totalitarianism. While he took a lot of influence from the Russian Communism 1984 wasn't just a statement against Stalinism, it was a warning of the evolution of totalitarianism and where it could happen.

He feared absolute control and power individuals could have over the masses: "The first thing for you to understand is that in this place there are no martyrdoms. You have read of the religious persecutions of the past. In the Middle Ages there was the Inquisition. It was a failure. It set out to eradicate heresy, and ended up perpetuating it. For every heretic it burned at the stake, thousands of others rose up. Why was that? Because the Inquisition killed its enemies in the open, and killed them while they were still unrepentant; in fact, it killed them because there were unrepentant. Men were dying because they would not abandon their true beliefs. Naturally all the glory belonged to the victim and all the shame to the Inquisitor who burned him. Later, in the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians, as they were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian Communists. The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done. And they imagined that they had learned from the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put into their mouths, covering themselves with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another, whimpering for mercy. And yet after only a few years the same thing had happened over again. The dead men had become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. Once again, why was it? In the first place, because the confessions that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue. We do not make mistakes of that kind. All the confessions that are uttered here are true. We make them true. And, above all, we do not allow the dead to rise up against us. You must stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you, Winston. Posterity will never hear of you. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you: not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed." O'Brien to Winston Smith, 1984. 

Do you agree with O'Brien on the older regimes to the Party in the novel? Is their system perfect in dealing with rebellion by destroying heresy through converting thought criminals?

"You asked me once," said O'Brien, "what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." -1984

The United States is not a dictatorship, totalitarian, or a police state. So why are some people saying that anarchy seems appealing? Why do they refer to our politicians as an oligarchy? Why do some people view presidents Bush and Obama as potential dictators? Is it their uses of executive orders that have made these harsh views?

To start things off, it was Theodore Roosevelt who actually started expanding federal power, with 1,006 executive orders, which was more than any president (before his time). Roosevelt emphatically rejected the view that "what was necessary for the nation could not be done by the president unless he could find some specific authorization to do it...it was not only [the president's] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demand unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2014/01/30/how-president-obama-could-be-swept-away-with-his-executive-orders-that-defy-congress-and-the-courts/

What Roosevelt said could easily be twisted and misused by any individuals, but I do not think President Roosevelt would approve of what's going on in our current situations, and with President Obama and ex-President Bush carrying out executive orders without the approval of Congress and possibly bypassing the Constitution. President Roosevelt clearly believed strongly that it was his job to serve the nation, not to just lead it. Do you agree or disagree? Do you think President Obama would consider his job to serve the nation or just to lead it?

A president cannot become a dictator through executive power, despite how many people fear this possibility. No doubt from frustration and perhaps just to make the president, whoever he/she is the bad guy we see in dystopian movies and books so often. "If a president's executive orders overstep their authority or improperly interpret or seek to enforce the law, there are means of relief. Congress can re-legislate the issue or the courts can throw them out. Criticism of president-as-dictator are always overblown, as the other branches of government serve as checks on the presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/01/30-state-of-the-union-obama-executive-orders-hudak 

Based on this information it seems unlikely that a president can make himself a dictator through executive orders. In Russia, the Communist Party was established via revolution, this too would be an unlikely thing to happen. The military branch wouldn't allow a revolution, nor would the other political branches stand by to allow this either. Also, Russia around 1917 was in decay with everyone being reduced to peasants, living in poor conditions and starving to death and the nation going into a massive debt. The first revolution overthrew the autocracy and created a provisional government in February 1917 known as the February Revolution. Unfortunately, the provisional government was weak, which led to the poverty and everyone living like peasants. The second revolution or October Revolution of 1917 removed the Provisional Government and created the Bolshevik or Communist government. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)]
World War I was when the Russian Army had a heavy setback under Nicholas II, the last Russian Emperor, this led to a mutiny in the military, which is when the February Revolution took place. For the October Revolution the Communists, led by Socialists had the allegiance of the lower class and political left. There were many protests, mutinies, and strikes as the Bolsheviks and Provisional Government vied for power. While the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting Germany, the Communist Party turned workers and militias under the Red Guard giving them substantial power. Led by Vladimir Lenin overthrew the Provisional Government and appointed themselves as leaders over various government ministries. Over the next five years, there was civil war between the Red (Bolsheviks) and White (anti-Bolshevik) until the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)]

Most citizens favored the revolution for the Communist Party. Their lifestyle greatly improved, even though there were negative consequences later on with the Great Purge. Stalin had the purge in order to eliminate dissidents from the Communist Party and to consolidate the power of Stalin. It was focused primarily on the party leaders as well as bureaucrats and military leadership. This was carried out by the NKVD or the Soviet Secret Police; most people eliminated in the purge were tortured and gave confessions from such duress. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge]

Even as bad as we have it, we're not as bad as the Russian citizens prior to the October Revolution; Nicholas II established an authoritarian system, people were expected to show more self-restraint, devotion to community, difference to the social hierarchy, and a sense of duty to the nation. He held a firm belief that his rule was of divine right. He believed that the people were loyal to him and would serve him without question. This belief led him unwilling to allow reforms that would alleviate the sufferings of the Russian citizens. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)]

Do you think a revolution might be necessary? Is it time for the current system to be disbanded and rebooted? Does revolution always need to employ violence? Or could there be a revolution without destruction? "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act" -George Orwell. Does this help in believing that a revolution could be without violence? Does that mean anything to you? 

Oceania: Big Brother vs United States Presidents Part 1

In "1984" Big Brother is the supposed dictator of Oceania, he's the face on the posters hanging all over the nation, his face is on all the screens. Most of all, he's watching you, all the time. Everyday after the Two Minutes Hate, people see his face on a large screen and chant "B-B" many times almost like a praise to God. Accurate as this is, as dictators have cults of personality, Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin are quintessential examples of this, dictators can have a god complex. Stalin considered himself the Father of Russia, he saw the people as his children. George Orwell based a lot of aspects in "1984" from the Communist Party, and some Nazism is seen in the Party as well. "1984" is supposed to be a warning about the possibility of totalitarianism, and the Communists and Nazis were among the largest recent threats during the time Orwell wrote the novel. Big Brother no doubt represents both Hitler and Stalin with the description: "...the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features". Perhaps it was meant to resemble Stalin more so, but I think Orwell left it open for both of these feared dictators and their totalitarian regimes.

You noticed I said the supposed dictator, there is room open to believe Big Brother might not be real. Goldstein's Book in "1984" suggests that he's just a face on the screen and poster to personify the Party. Something for the people to love, and feel loved by, and have safety in like a parent embracing their children. It's conceivable that the face of Big Brother is a man from the Inner Party, and perhaps was part of the Revolution to create Oceania. But, O'Brien says "Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party." And when Winston asked if B.B. would die, "Of course not. How could he die?"

Do you think he really exists? Is O'Brien lying?

Now, let's talk about current politicians. Several images I have seen show Presidents Bush and Obama in the image of  Big Brother. While I can appreciate homage to a favored novel, I would of course still consider the comparisons to Big Brother to these two politicians far fetched. While everyone has a right to share opinions, this can be touchy as sometimes inaccuracies and exaggerations get out there. Despite the flaws that Bush and Obama have, I don't agree with that, even the comparisons to Hitler and Stalin. To say that these two presidents are like the dictators of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would be a gross exaggeration. Any dictator comparison is ridiculous. Would you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Okay, so maybe it's fair that people are concerned with the actions taken by both these presidents, but exaggerations might be damaging to your cause. Sure, it might get people's attentions, but it can cause misinformation and inaccurate reasons for the distrust of the politicians. Now, I know it seems ridiculous to need a solid reason to distrust a politician, since on a level no one trusts them. However, good and solid facts are needed for understanding why they shouldn't be trusted and how they could be threats to the people. With all the fiction in books, movies, and games we easily mingle the fact with fiction.

It's no secret that Bush and Obama have done a high amount of executive orders during their times (still in Obama's time). Executive orders, while legitimate actions for a president are still a risky move for them. Especially when it's for war, or to cut through laws just because they can. Do you think this should be avoided, even/especially for convenience? Consider the recent trade of five Taliban prisoners for one soldier, should Obama have notified Congress first then perhaps try to push to cut the thirty day action? Or should he have just followed the protocol concerning the prisoner trade? Do you think it's immoral for a president to break rules easily just because he can with an executive order? How many areas of gray should we allow to be mingled in with this legitimate way of pushing through rules and red tape? Or are black and white better shades in executive orders?

 Still, ever since the birth of the United States the presidents have been using executive orders or proclamations as they used to be called. Yes, even George Washington used five executive orders, the first of which was on October 3, 1789 for a public Thanksgiving, and this was approved by congress. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2014/01/30/how-president-obama-could-be-swept-away-with-his-executive-orders-that-defy-congress-and-the-courts/). I would like to point out that Article II Section 2 of the Constitution "constitutes a grant of all executive powers of which the government is capable of" you'll find that from the credited site.

How do you think this could translate? Could it be misused by presidents? Should executive orders be first approved by congress before the president carries them out? Or should executive power mean nothing can stop the president's decision?

Certainly if you look deeper you can see this: "Justice Hugo Black, another Democrat, wrote the majority opinion invalidating the seizures. Black explained that an executive order (1) "must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself" and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it's "incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress" If this is the case why has Obama been ignoring protocol with Congress? Do you agree that Congress should have the final word on any executive order? Could a president of the United States become a dictator like Hitler or Stalin by using executive powers? Is a totalitarian state conceivable or impossible in the United States? Should we even fear that possibility?

Next post will look more deeply into executive orders carried out by presidents Busy and Obama. Big Brother is watching you!

Oceania 1984 and United States 2014

This book has been around for sixty-five years, today it still is a best selling novel. The events that take place in the book are thirty years past. Yet, strangely today many people still talk about 1984 and Orwellian themes with some fear. Why is that? Why is a book that's thirty years past its events still of concern to us?

Three decades after his novel's events we don't have telescreens that don't turn off and watch us in our private homes with microphones. There aren't any secret police labeled Thought Police that monitor us for good thought on our leaders. (Do you think there could be? Does censorship on free thought make this comparable?) We don't have great banners of a mustachioed figure that's "watching you", but you hear about Big Brother in comparison to our president, specifically with Bush and now Obama. Does this seem right to you? Are these politicians the Big Brother of modern USA? Does the idea of Big Brother exist?

The Inner Party, which is the ruling class of Oceania are not really known to us, with the exception of O'Brien. Do you think they represent Congress, the Senate or faceless bureaucrats? Is our society run by an oligarchy as it is in 1984 or do we have a large ruling party? Do you fear the faces on the posters of politicians or the faceless sponsors?

Does any of this mean anything to you?  More will come in a series of 1984 and a couple other Dystopians. Big Brother is watching you.